agent-memory-mcp

memory_find_duplicates

Read-onlyIdempotent

Identify duplicate memories using text and/or semantic similarity within a given scope, without modifying any data.

Instructions

Suggest duplicates using text and/or cached embedding similarity within one scope. Never modifies memories.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "memory_find_duplicates"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`id`	Yes
`mode`	No	text
`limit`	No
`project`	No
`namespace`	No
`threshold`	No
`max_candidates`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.1Sep 9, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description reinforces the read-only and non-destructive nature by stating 'Never modifies memories,' which complements the annotations. It does not mention rate limits or permission requirements, but the annotations already cover idempotency and lack of side effects.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, concise sentence that directly states the action and its constraints. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and avoids unnecessary elaboration.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description lacks information about return values and parameter usage. Given that there is no output schema, an agent cannot predict the response format, and parameter semantics are undocumented, making the tool incomplete for complex use.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema defines seven parameters (id, mode, limit, project, namespace, threshold, max_candidates) but the description provides no explanations for any of them. Since schema coverage is 0%, the description fails to compensate, leaving parameter meanings ambiguous.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's function: suggesting duplicates using text or embedding similarity within a scope. It also explicitly notes that it never modifies memories, which disambiguates its side-effect-free nature.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies when to use this tool—when you need to find duplicate memories—but it does not explicitly contrast it with alternatives like memory_search or memory_list. However, the unique purpose of duplicate detection is clear enough for an agent to infer usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.